Final answer:
The Anti-Federalist argument was that listing rights in the form of a Bill of Rights is essential to prevent an overextension of federal powers and protect individual liberties.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Anti-Federalist argument concerning the Constitution is that listing rights is essential. The Anti-Federalists were concerned about the scope of the federal government's power and feared that without a specific list of protected rights, the government would have too much control over individuals' liberties. They argued that, much like state constitutions, a federal Bill of Rights was necessary to guard against the potential tyranny of a centralized government. This view was articulated by figures such as Brutus, likely Robert Yates, who emphasized the need to constrain the national government's power to ensure the protection of life, liberty, and property.
Conversely, the Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and potentially dangerous as it might lead to the assumption that any unlisted rights were unprotected. They reasoned that the Constitution's limits on government power were sufficient security for citizens' freedoms. However, after much debate, the Anti-Federalists' stance led to the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, addressing the concerns over individual liberties and leading to the ratification of the Constitution by all states.